Thanks to visit codestin.com
Credit goes to github.com

Skip to content

Conversation

no92
Copy link
Contributor

@no92 no92 commented Apr 1, 2024

This PR aims to introduce the x86_64-unknown-managarm-mlibc as a tier 3 target to Rust.

managarm is a microkernel with fully asynchronous I/O that also provides a POSIX server. Despite the differences, managarm provides good compatability with POSIX and Linux APIs. As a rule of thumb, barring OS-specific code, it should be mostly source-compatible with Linux.

We have been shipping a patched rust for over 25 releases now, and we would like to upstream our work. For a smoother process, this PR only adds the target to rustc and some documentation. std support will be added in a future PR.

Addressing the tier 3 target policy

A tier 3 target must have a designated developer or developers (the "target maintainers") on record to be CCed when issues arise regarding the target. (The mechanism to track and CC such developers may evolve over time.)

@no92, @64 and @Dennisbonke will be target maintainers.

Targets must use naming consistent with any existing targets; for instance, a target for the same CPU or OS as an existing Rust target should use the same name for that CPU or OS. Targets should normally use the same names and naming conventions as used elsewhere in the broader ecosystem beyond Rust (such as in other toolchains), unless they have a very good reason to diverge. Changing the name of a target can be highly disruptive, especially once the target reaches a higher tier, so getting the name right is important even for a tier 3 target.

  • Target names should not introduce undue confusion or ambiguity unless absolutely necessary to maintain ecosystem compatibility. For example, if the name of the target makes people extremely likely to form incorrect beliefs about what it targets, the name should be changed or augmented to disambiguate it.
  • If possible, use only letters, numbers, dashes and underscores for the name. Periods (.) are known to cause issues in Cargo.

x86_64-unknown-managarm-mlibc is what we use for LLVM as well.

Tier 3 targets may have unusual requirements to build or use, but must not create legal issues or impose onerous legal terms for the Rust project or for Rust developers or users.

  • The target must not introduce license incompatibilities.
  • Anything added to the Rust repository must be under the standard Rust license (MIT OR Apache-2.0).
  • The target must not cause the Rust tools or libraries built for any other host (even when supporting cross-compilation to the target) to depend on any new dependency less permissive than the Rust licensing policy. This applies whether the dependency is a Rust crate that would require adding new license exceptions (as specified by the tidy tool in the rust-lang/rust repository), or whether the dependency is a native library or binary. In other words, the introduction of the target must not cause a user installing or running a version of Rust or the Rust tools to be subject to any new license requirements.
  • Compiling, linking, and emitting functional binaries, libraries, or other code for the target (whether hosted on the target itself or cross-compiling from another target) must not depend on proprietary (non-FOSS) libraries. Host tools built for the target itself may depend on the ordinary runtime libraries supplied by the platform and commonly used by other applications built for the target, but those libraries must not be required for code generation for the target; cross-compilation to the target must not require such libraries at all. For instance, rustc built for the target may depend on a common proprietary C runtime library or console output library, but must not depend on a proprietary code generation library or code optimization library. Rust's license permits such combinations, but the Rust project has no interest in maintaining such combinations within the scope of Rust itself, even at tier 3.
  • "onerous" here is an intentionally subjective term. At a minimum, "onerous" legal/licensing terms include but are not limited to: non-disclosure requirements, non-compete requirements, contributor license agreements (CLAs) or equivalent, "non-commercial"/"research-only"/etc terms, requirements conditional on the employer or employment of any particular Rust developers, revocable terms, any requirements that create liability for the Rust project or its developers or users, or any requirements that adversely affect the livelihood or prospects of the Rust project or its developers or users.

managarm is licensed as MIT. No dependencies were added.

Neither this policy nor any decisions made regarding targets shall create any binding agreement or estoppel by any party. If any member of an approving Rust team serves as one of the maintainers of a target, or has any legal or employment requirement (explicit or implicit) that might affect their decisions regarding a target, they must recuse themselves from any approval decisions regarding the target's tier status, though they may otherwise participate in discussions.

  • This requirement does not prevent part or all of this policy from being cited in an explicit contract or work agreement (e.g. to implement or maintain support for a target). This requirement exists to ensure that a developer or team responsible for reviewing and approving a target does not face any legal threats or obligations that would prevent them from freely exercising their judgment in such approval, even if such judgment involves subjective matters or goes beyond the letter of these requirements.

Understood. None of the listed maintainers are on a Rust team.

Tier 3 targets should attempt to implement as much of the standard libraries as possible and appropriate (core for most targets, alloc for targets that can support dynamic memory allocation, std for targets with an operating system or equivalent layer of system-provided functionality), but may leave some code unimplemented (either unavailable or stubbed out as appropriate), whether because the target makes it impossible to implement or challenging to implement. The authors of pull requests are not obligated to avoid calling any portions of the standard library on the basis of a tier 3 target not implementing those portions.

Support for std will be provided in a future PR. Only minor changes are required, however they depend on support in the libc crate which will be PRed in soon.

The target must provide documentation for the Rust community explaining how to build for the target, using cross-compilation if possible. If the target supports running binaries, or running tests (even if they do not pass), the documentation must explain how to run such binaries or tests for the target, using emulation if possible or dedicated hardware if necessary.

The steps needed to take are described in the documentation provided with this PR.

Tier 3 targets must not impose burden on the authors of pull requests, or other developers in the community, to maintain the target. In particular, do not post comments (automated or manual) on a PR that derail or suggest a block on the PR based on a tier 3 target. Do not send automated messages or notifications (via any medium, including via @) to a PR author or others involved with a PR regarding a tier 3 target, unless they have opted into such messages.

  • Backlinks such as those generated by the issue/PR tracker when linking to an issue or PR are not considered a violation of this policy, within reason. However, such messages (even on a separate repository) must not generate notifications to anyone involved with a PR who has not requested such notifications.

Understood.

Patches adding or updating tier 3 targets must not break any existing tier 2 or tier 1 target, and must not knowingly break another tier 3 target without approval of either the compiler team or the maintainers of the other tier 3 target.

  • In particular, this may come up when working on closely related targets, such as variations of the same architecture with different features. Avoid introducing unconditional uses of features that another variation of the target may not have; use conditional compilation or runtime detection, as appropriate, to let each target run code supported by that target.

We have no indication that anything breaks due to this PR.

Tier 3 targets must be able to produce assembly using at least one of rustc's supported backends from any host target.

No problems here, as we target x86_64.

r? compiler-team

@rustbot
Copy link
Collaborator

rustbot commented Apr 1, 2024

Thanks for the pull request, and welcome! The Rust team is excited to review your changes, and you should hear from @davidtwco (or someone else) some time within the next two weeks.

Please see the contribution instructions for more information. Namely, in order to ensure the minimum review times lag, PR authors and assigned reviewers should ensure that the review label (S-waiting-on-review and S-waiting-on-author) stays updated, invoking these commands when appropriate:

  • @rustbot author: the review is finished, PR author should check the comments and take action accordingly
  • @rustbot review: the author is ready for a review, this PR will be queued again in the reviewer's queue

@rustbot rustbot added S-waiting-on-review Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties. T-compiler Relevant to the compiler team, which will review and decide on the PR/issue. labels Apr 1, 2024
@rustbot
Copy link
Collaborator

rustbot commented Apr 1, 2024

These commits modify compiler targets.
(See the Target Tier Policy.)

Some changes occurred in src/doc/rustc/src/platform-support

cc @Nilstrieb

Some changes occurred in tests/ui/check-cfg

cc @Urgau

@rust-log-analyzer

This comment has been minimized.

@no92 no92 force-pushed the managarm-target branch from bbe655b to 5ef5bbb Compare April 1, 2024 11:20
@rust-log-analyzer

This comment has been minimized.

@no92 no92 force-pushed the managarm-target branch from 5ef5bbb to 8b2f750 Compare April 1, 2024 11:27
@rust-log-analyzer

This comment has been minimized.

@no92 no92 force-pushed the managarm-target branch from 8b2f750 to 3f149bf Compare April 1, 2024 11:37
@rust-log-analyzer

This comment has been minimized.

@no92 no92 force-pushed the managarm-target branch from 3f149bf to eba9cc1 Compare April 1, 2024 12:26

## Building Rust programs

Build a `x86_64-managarm-gcc` using our [gcc fork](https://github.com/managarm/gcc).
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Does lld not work for this target?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Using lld is not a supported and tested option for us right now.

@no92
Copy link
Contributor Author

no92 commented Apr 1, 2024

Addressed the comments with the fixup commits.

@bors

This comment was marked as resolved.

@davidtwco davidtwco added S-blocked Status: Blocked on something else such as an RFC or other implementation work. and removed S-waiting-on-review Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties. labels Apr 8, 2024
@davidtwco
Copy link
Member

Marking this as blocked on LLVM support for the target

@brad0
Copy link

brad0 commented Aug 17, 2025

Just FYI Managarm support has been upstramed to LLVM.. llvm/llvm-project@0f302f3 and will be included with the LLVM 21 release.

@no92 no92 force-pushed the managarm-target branch from 6883e01 to 675c8ca Compare August 28, 2025 21:17
@rustbot rustbot added the T-bootstrap Relevant to the bootstrap subteam: Rust's build system (x.py and src/bootstrap) label Aug 28, 2025
@rustbot
Copy link
Collaborator

rustbot commented Aug 28, 2025

This PR was rebased onto a different master commit. Here's a range-diff highlighting what actually changed.

Rebasing is a normal part of keeping PRs up to date, so no action is needed—this note is just to help reviewers.

@no92
Copy link
Contributor Author

no92 commented Aug 28, 2025

Now that we're upstream in LLVM 21, we have updated our toolchain and rebased this patchset onto current rust master. Due to changes done to cc-rs in the meantime, we had to get the mlibc env recognized by it. Therefore, we need to bump the version of cc-rs that is used by bootstrap, as can be seen in the first commit. Also, we added aarch64 and riscv64 support, which we test and use on managarm already.

@rust-log-analyzer

This comment has been minimized.

@no92 no92 force-pushed the managarm-target branch from 675c8ca to 760c2b8 Compare August 28, 2025 21:24
@rust-log-analyzer

This comment has been minimized.

@no92 no92 force-pushed the managarm-target branch from 760c2b8 to 8434d38 Compare August 28, 2025 22:49
@davidtwco
Copy link
Member

@bors r+ rollup

@bors
Copy link
Collaborator

bors commented Aug 29, 2025

📌 Commit 8434d38 has been approved by davidtwco

It is now in the queue for this repository.

@bors bors added S-waiting-on-bors Status: Waiting on bors to run and complete tests. Bors will change the label on completion. and removed S-blocked Status: Blocked on something else such as an RFC or other implementation work. labels Aug 29, 2025
@bors
Copy link
Collaborator

bors commented Aug 30, 2025

⌛ Testing commit 8434d38 with merge 846e377...

@bors
Copy link
Collaborator

bors commented Aug 30, 2025

☀️ Test successful - checks-actions
Approved by: davidtwco
Pushing 846e377 to master...

@bors bors added the merged-by-bors This PR was explicitly merged by bors. label Aug 30, 2025
@bors bors merged commit 846e377 into rust-lang:master Aug 30, 2025
11 checks passed
@rustbot rustbot added this to the 1.91.0 milestone Aug 30, 2025
Copy link
Contributor

What is this? This is an experimental post-merge analysis report that shows differences in test outcomes between the merged PR and its parent PR.

Comparing b53c72f (parent) -> 846e377 (this PR)

Test differences

Show 11 test diffs

Stage 1

  • spec::tests::aarch64_unknown_managarm_mlibc: [missing] -> pass (J1)
  • spec::tests::riscv64gc_unknown_managarm_mlibc: [missing] -> pass (J1)
  • spec::tests::x86_64_unknown_managarm_mlibc: [missing] -> pass (J1)
  • [assembly] tests/assembly-llvm/targets/targets-elf.rs#aarch64_unknown_managarm_mlibc: [missing] -> pass (J2)
  • [assembly] tests/assembly-llvm/targets/targets-elf.rs#riscv64gc_unknown_managarm_mlibc: [missing] -> pass (J2)
  • [assembly] tests/assembly-llvm/targets/targets-elf.rs#x86_64_unknown_managarm_mlibc: [missing] -> pass (J2)

Stage 2

  • [assembly] tests/assembly-llvm/targets/targets-elf.rs#aarch64_unknown_managarm_mlibc: [missing] -> pass (J0)
  • [assembly] tests/assembly-llvm/targets/targets-elf.rs#riscv64gc_unknown_managarm_mlibc: [missing] -> pass (J0)
  • [assembly] tests/assembly-llvm/targets/targets-elf.rs#x86_64_unknown_managarm_mlibc: [missing] -> pass (J0)

Additionally, 2 doctest diffs were found. These are ignored, as they are noisy.

Job group index

Test dashboard

Run

cargo run --manifest-path src/ci/citool/Cargo.toml -- \
    test-dashboard 846e377215c5985b3a0fe7af6bb71bdc45912aae --output-dir test-dashboard

And then open test-dashboard/index.html in your browser to see an overview of all executed tests.

Job duration changes

  1. pr-check-1: 1392.4s -> 1679.4s (20.6%)
  2. i686-gnu-1: 7590.9s -> 8850.3s (16.6%)
  3. x86_64-rust-for-linux: 2568.9s -> 2985.7s (16.2%)
  4. x86_64-gnu-llvm-19: 2438.2s -> 2783.8s (14.2%)
  5. i686-gnu-2: 5474.3s -> 6167.7s (12.7%)
  6. aarch64-gnu-debug: 4298.3s -> 4841.8s (12.6%)
  7. i686-gnu-nopt-1: 7326.4s -> 8241.9s (12.5%)
  8. aarch64-gnu-llvm-19-2: 2205.1s -> 2475.7s (12.3%)
  9. aarch64-msvc-1: 6560.1s -> 7335.3s (11.8%)
  10. x86_64-gnu-miri: 4562.1s -> 5057.4s (10.9%)
How to interpret the job duration changes?

Job durations can vary a lot, based on the actual runner instance
that executed the job, system noise, invalidated caches, etc. The table above is provided
mostly for t-infra members, for simpler debugging of potential CI slow-downs.

@rust-timer
Copy link
Collaborator

Finished benchmarking commit (846e377): comparison URL.

Overall result: no relevant changes - no action needed

@rustbot label: -perf-regression

Instruction count

This benchmark run did not return any relevant results for this metric.

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results (primary -2.6%)

A less reliable metric. May be of interest, but not used to determine the overall result above.

mean range count
Regressions ❌
(primary)
- - 0
Regressions ❌
(secondary)
- - 0
Improvements ✅
(primary)
-2.6% [-2.6%, -2.6%] 1
Improvements ✅
(secondary)
- - 0
All ❌✅ (primary) -2.6% [-2.6%, -2.6%] 1

Cycles

Results (secondary 0.8%)

A less reliable metric. May be of interest, but not used to determine the overall result above.

mean range count
Regressions ❌
(primary)
- - 0
Regressions ❌
(secondary)
2.7% [2.6%, 2.8%] 3
Improvements ✅
(primary)
- - 0
Improvements ✅
(secondary)
-4.9% [-4.9%, -4.9%] 1
All ❌✅ (primary) - - 0

Binary size

This benchmark run did not return any relevant results for this metric.

Bootstrap: 466.779s -> 465.855s (-0.20%)
Artifact size: 388.53 MiB -> 388.54 MiB (0.00%)

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
merged-by-bors This PR was explicitly merged by bors. S-waiting-on-bors Status: Waiting on bors to run and complete tests. Bors will change the label on completion. T-bootstrap Relevant to the bootstrap subteam: Rust's build system (x.py and src/bootstrap) T-compiler Relevant to the compiler team, which will review and decide on the PR/issue.
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

10 participants